Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 021
Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 06:38:00 GMT
From: paranet!f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: Re: UFORA a ParaNet Source
> Judging from the excellent job UFORA did on the Mundrabilla
> incident, this is good news indeed! Jim
Jim:
I have just read there report on the Mundrabilla incident and I
agree it was excellent and certainle recomended reading. I only wish
other reports was as well done at that was.
Now that we have a link I will be doing by best to feed some
interesting material into ParaNet. Of course and article like
Mundrabilla is best reas in its news letter form.
For others who are interested the UFO Research Australia Newsletter is
available from UFORA at PO Box 229, Prospect, South Australia and is
AUD35.00 air mail for five periodical issues. The Mundrabilla
Incident is covered in April and May issues of this year.
Unfortunately Vladimir Godic has not yet got himself a modem but I
have stated that I will set a mail system and post the disks over that
way we can get them on line.
Bob...
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!401!Bob.Fletcher
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 03:43:04 GMT
From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Torson
Subject: RE: CUFOS files
In the file SMITH.TXT Willy Smith states that the CUFOS files "are not
accessible to anyone". You asked why I consider this to be a rather
serious accusation.
It is probably safe to say that many UFO researchers would consider the
J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) to be the most
scientifically reputable UFO organization in this country. That would
certainly be my opinion, based on attending two lectures by the late
Dr. Hynek and reading the CUFOS bimonthly publication, International
UFO Reporter, for a number of years. The following are excerpts from
a CUFOS information brochure:
"The CUFOS Mission: To promote serious research into the UFO phenomenon.
"CUFOS is an international group of scientists, academics, investigators
and volunteers dedicated to the continuing examination and analysis of
the UFO phenomenon. The purpose of CUFOS is to be a clearinghouse for
the two-way exchange of information - where UFO reports can be reported,
and where UFO experiences can be researched.
...
"CUFOS maintains one of the world's largest repositories of data about
the UFO phenomenon. The material is available for study, research or
examination by any qualified individual or organization. CUFOS currently
has:
"-- more than 50,000 cases of UFO sightings and experiences on file,
mostly original case reports and/or investigations.
"-- a library of more than 5,000 books and magazines on all aspects of
the UFO phenomenon.
"CUFOS Activities: The scientific collection, evaluation and
dissemination of information about the UFO phenomenon. ..."
If Smith's statement is true, then this would seriously damage the
scientific credibility of CUFOS. This would certainly be a surprise
to many people. On the other hand, if it is not true, then it would
damage Smith's credibility. Since the ParaNet rating of the Gulf Breeze
case seems to be at least partly based on Smith's opinion, it would be
worthwhile to determine the truth in this matter. Smith's statement
should not be accepted without verification.
--
Jim Torson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!304!1!Jim.Torson
INTERNET: Jim.Torson@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 06:41:00 GMT
From: paranet!f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bob.Fletcher
Subject: CUFOS files
> > In the article contained in SMITH.TXT, Willy Smith states that the
> > CUFOS files "are not accessible to anyone". This is a rather serious
> Out of curiosity, why would it be considered a "rather
> serious accusation?". Could you enlighten us, as to why you feel
> this to be so?
As a general comment it sounds odd that an organisation dedicated to
be against secrect actually is secret its self, or have I just read
too mush into the comments.
Bob...
--
Bob Fletcher - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!401!Bob.Fletcher
INTERNET: Bob.Fletcher@f401.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: CUFOS files
Date: 23 Aug 89 00:30:00 GMT
For the record, the point seems to have been covered in Jerry Clark's
upload. His response is that its just plain not true, that the files
are open to anyone.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!20!Jim.Speiser
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 08:39:00 GMT
From: paranet!f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: RE: CUFOS files
Jim:
To be brief, I admit to being "taken in" by Smith, and as things stand
now, I repudiate his findings. But the operative word here is
"partially"; that is, I partially based the rating on Smith's work.
Even without it, however, I still consider this case a hoax. The straw
that broke the camel's back was NOT Smith's work, but that of Wim Van
Utrecht (the photos published in the last IUR) and the arguments
presented by, among others, Don Schmitt of CUFOS.
I should also state that I have received some correspondence from Mr.
Ed and from Don Ware, and a videotape from Bruce Maccabee, and I am
satisfied that the ubiquitous "demon photo" stories are no longer a
factor in this case.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!20!Jim.Speiser
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 17:18:00 GMT
From: paranet!Marc.Dantonio
Subject: Re: Cydonia Breakthrough
OK thanks for the info on Hoagland. By the way, according to
preliminary data on the magnetic field on Neptune, not much out of the
expected has occurred so far. I will not cast a complete judgement on
his work until I finish reading his items of course. Then I can
formulate a more useful opinion. My previous statements were in regards
to #1 the Prediction of Neptune's magnetic field , and #2 His biased
approach to presenting the "face" data. So far these are the only two
items that I contest with him. I will continue to examine his other
data to see if I can get a clearer picture of it. He seems to hide
behind too much mathematics so far and I cannot decipher a lot of what
he is saying because my mathematics level although well developed is
tailored to astrophysical interests and I have to rethink for some of
the more obtuse and obscure geometric lemmas that he is referring
to....yuk...I will give it my best shot!
marc
--
Marc Dantonio - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Marc.Dantonio
INTERNET: Marc.Dantonio@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 89 17:20:00 GMT
From: paranet!Marc.Dantonio
Subject: Re: Corrections
Bryon
I really would like a detailed report of your encounter. I find it
interesting and would like to examine it more thoroughly. (Then again
you are an interesting figure here on Paranet and it fits...)
--
Marc Dantonio - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: ...!scicom!Marc.Dantonio
INTERNET: Marc.Dantonio@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER
ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
ARTICLE SUBMISSION info-paranet@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
